The Use of Reason is a blog that takes a common sense view of society and its problems. I try to look at things not from the standpoint of whether the issue has an R or a D next to it, but instead from the perspective of a rational human being trying to solve problems. Oddly enough, the common sense, practical perspective usually ends up being the conservative one. If you'd like a sane, average-Joe's point of view, check out the blog.

Follow by Email

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Why Not a Runoff?

We need runoffs in the election process. Think of all of the confusion and hysteria that would be eliminated. There would be no more spoilers (e.g. Nader and Perot). We'd have more people actually speaking their minds, knowing that they no longer have to seek the blandness of the middle road to have a real chance.

Romney would have probably secured the Republican ticket had there been a runoff. He was certainly the main choice of the conservative wing of the Republican party. Only the splitting of the conservative vote cost him the nomination. Hillary would likely have garnered a more secure position, winning the Democratic nomination, if she didn't have to split the pie, so to speak, with John Edwards and the like. We might actually have had a real choice this election, a real dichotomy of opinion rather than a communist (Obama) versus a liberal (McCain), the only difference being the speed of retreat from a war we are winning.

Third parties would benefit from a runoff. You'd never have to worry that your vote for a third party candidate was helping elect someone else. Therefore, more people would take third parties seriously, vastly changing the political landscape and assuring that neither Republicans nor Democrats could take anybody's vote for granted.

Had there been a runoff in place during the 1990's, Bill Clinton would never have been president. Let's face it, the man never garnered anywhere near a majority of the vote. A runoff would have either narrowed the field to a clear choice between Bush and Clinton, with the fiscally-conservative Perot voters going for Bush, or Clinton and Perot, with the Bush voters pushing Perot over the top. Bill Clinton would never have stained the presidency, or Monica's dress for that matter.

Sure it would be a bit costly, but it would be nowhere near as costly as having another tax-gouging spendthrift in office, eager to convert as many Americans as possible into government dependants for the sake of the addict vote. Let's give Americans a clear choice in every election; let's have a runoff!